Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 2019–2026 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Iowa courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State of Iowa v. Christopher Ryan Lee Robygreen2 sentences2024Nothing in Roby requires the use of expert testimony in juvenile sentencings. 21 Since Roby, we have stressed “that these sentencing hearings need not be a battle of the experts.” Majors, 940 N.W.2d at 393. 2019The district court conducted his individualized sentencing hearing after our decision in State v. Roby, 897 N.W.2d 127 , 145-47 (Iowa 2017), which elaborated on the juvenile sentencing factors set forth in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 , 477-78, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2468 (2012), and State v. Lyle, 854 N.W.2d 378 , 404 n.10 (Iowa 2014). | 2 | 3 |
Miller v. Alabamagreen2 sentences2019The district court conducted his individualized sentencing hearing after our decision in State v. Roby, 897 N.W.2d 127 , 145-47 (Iowa 2017), which elaborated on the juvenile sentencing factors set forth in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 , 477-78, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2468 (2012), and State v. Lyle, 854 N.W.2d 378 , 404 n.10 (Iowa 2014). 2019The district court conducted his individualized sentencing hearing after our decision in State v. Roby, 897 N.W.2d 127 , 145-47 (Iowa 2017), which elaborated on the juvenile sentencing factors set forth in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 , 477-78, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2468 (2012), and State v. Lyle, 854 N.W.2d 378 , 404 n.10 (Iowa 2014). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Lylegreen2 sentences2024See State v. Lyle, 854 N.W.2d 378 , 404 n.10 (Iowa 2014) (requiring the court to consider certain factors before imposing mandatory minimum sentencing scheme on juvenile offenders). 2019The district court conducted his individualized sentencing hearing after our decision in State v. Roby, 897 N.W.2d 127 , 145-47 (Iowa 2017), which elaborated on the juvenile sentencing factors set forth in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 , 477-78, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2468 (2012), and State v. Lyle, 854 N.W.2d 378 , 404 n.10 (Iowa 2014). | 1 | 3 |
State of Iowa v. Khasif Rasheed Whitegreen1 sentence2024Overall, the juvenile sentencing factors a district court must consider are less a matter of science and more accurately “tools for weighing juvenile culpability.” White, 903 N.W.2d at 337 (Mansfield, J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
James Elvin Dorsey v. State of Iowa
green
1 sentence2026Cf. Dorsey v. State, 975 N.W.2d 356 , 361 (Iowa 2022) (allowing a juvenile- sentencing claim to proceed where the allegedly res judicata ruling pre-dated a significant change in state constitutional law). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Michael Thomas Goodwin v. Iowa District Court for Davis County
green
1 sentence2025Ct., 936 N.W.2d 634 , 643–44 (Iowa 2019) (explaining why a challenge to the application of the juvenile sentencing factors is not a challenge to an illegal sentence). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Jones v. Mississippi
green
1 sentence2021See State v. Majors, 940 N.W.2d 372 , 385–86 (Iowa 2020) (stating “the sentencing court must consider the Miller/Lyle/Roby factors in an individualized sentencing hearing if it is contemplating imposing a mandatory minimum sentence on a juvenile offender” and “[i]f the sentence imposed is within the statutory limits, . . . we review for an abuse of discretion”); see also Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 477 (2012) (identifying the “hallmark features” of youth)1; State v. Roby, 897 N.W.2d 127, 144 (Iowa 2017) (“We endorse the five factors identified in Miller as guideposts for courts to follow. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.